Hit the play button

Nov 9th, 2018 10:22 am | By

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 11 comments
Tags: ,


They were surprised by the criticism

Nov 9th, 2018 9:29 am | By

Good grief, they’re surprised.

There is a growing sense of concern inside the White House over the negative reaction to Matthew Whitaker being tapped as acting attorney general after Jeff Sessions’ abrupt firing.

Whitaker, who was Sessions’ chief of staff, has faced criticism since Wednesday afternoon’s announcement for his previous comments on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Several senior officials told CNN they were surprised by the criticism, and believe it could potentially jeopardize Whitaker’s chances of remaining in the post if it continues to dominate headlines.

How can they possibly be surprised??

Just for a start, Whitaker is a complete nobody. To go on, the normal thing would be to make the Deputy AG the acting AG. To continue, we all know about Trump’s suspicions of Rosenstein, and Trump’s determination to kneecap the Mueller investigation if he can, and Trump’s delusion that the Justice Department belongs to him as opposed to the executive branch and the government and the people. Skipping over the normal and obvious person to be acting AG in favor of an unknown chief of staff with a long record of trashing the Mueller investigation…should have been just fine with us? Can they really be that deluded?

It was not widely known among White House staff that he’d commented repeatedly on the special counsel’s investigation in interviews and on television — which is ironic given that this is what drew President Donald Trump to him and raises continued questions over the depth of the administration’s vetting process.

Sooooo…what, they were all on vacation when the appointment was being discussed?

George Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, co-authored a New York Times op-ed published Thursday that called the appointment “unconstitutional.”

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, Conway wrote, “means Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid.”

Whitaker’s standing ultimately depends on the President. But continued negative coverage will get Trump’s attention.

There it is again, that “it’s illegal/Trump can do it” split.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 3 comments
Tags:


In installing a hack to obstruct the Mueller investigation

Nov 8th, 2018 4:59 pm | By

This afternoon outside the White House:

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 2 comments


It is a profoundly dangerous moment

Nov 8th, 2018 12:29 pm | By

There are conflicting streams of thought, or maybe I just mean of talk, about whether or not Trump can get away with kneecapping the Mueller investigation right in plain sight. Some people – including lawyers – are saying he can’t, he can’t, he can’t, and others are saying like hell he can’t. Jeffrey Toobin was exasperatedly emphatic voicing the latter on CNN last night. Others are emphatic that he can’t, but they seem to mean just morally speaking, not that it’s literally impossible. It seems to be the case that Trump can get away with it if nobody stops him, and that it’s not at all clear that anyone can stop him. It’s hard to get clarity about it because so many people are muddling up the meaning of “can.”

Lawfare has a six-author post on the subject by Mikhaila Fogel, Susan Hennessey, Quinta Jurecic, Matthew Kahn, Anushka Limaye, Benjamin Wittes.

The firing of Jeff Sessions and his replacement on an interim basis by a man who has expressed open hostility to the Mueller investigation and in whose loyalty President Trump has expressed confidence marks a major moment in the course of the Russia investigation.

It is a profoundly dangerous moment: The president fired the attorney general, as he once fired the FBI director, for plainly illegitimate reasons: because the attorney general acted appropriately on an investigative matter in which Trump himself has the deepest of personal interests. Trump does not even pretend there are other reasons. He removed the attorney general because the attorney general did not protect him from investigation. Yes, the president has the raw power to do this. But as was the case with the firing of James Comey, it is an abuse of the power he wields.

There it is in a nutshell, what I’m trying to figure out. He has the raw power but it’s an abuse of that power.

It’s not reassuring.

Trump obviously thinks the whole point of power when he has it is that he can abuse it to get whatever result he wants. Nothing else has any meaning to him.

Jeff Sessions has now left his post as attorney general and has been replaced on an acting basis by a man about whom a significant measure of anxiety is only prudent.

In other words be scared shitless because Whitaker is going to let Trump abuse his raw power to his vestigial heart’s content.

The immediate question is whether Whitaker will seek to impede the Mueller investigation. His public statements on the subject, to put the matter mildly, do not inspire confidence. Here’s a sampling:

  • As the Washington Post noted on Oct. 10—when it reported that Trump had spoken with Whitaker about assuming Sessions’s role—Whitaker argued in a CNN.com op-ed that any investigation by Mueller into the finances of Trump and his associates could be a “red line.”
  • A month before his CNN op-ed was published, Whitaker said on the network that “I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced by a recess appointment and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigations [sic] grinds to almost a halt.”
  • He defended Donald Trump Jr.’s 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower, saying that he would have taken the meeting as well.
  • Immediately after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, Whitaker penned an opinion article in the Hill defending the dismissal and making the case against the appointment of a special counsel.
  • While Whitaker’s Twitter account is mostly about football, he tweeted a link to an article referring to the Russia investigation as a “lynch mob” in August 2017
  • He also criticized the special prosecutor’s search of the home of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as “designed to intimidate”

But maybe he’ll be forced to recuse himself?

Like Sessions, Whitaker may be obligated to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. The relevant Justice Department guideline is Section 45.2 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which states that “no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with” either “any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” or “any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.”

Although the regulations do not indicate that Whitaker’s public statements alone necessarily require recusal, Whitaker has other connections to people whose conduct is at issue in the matter. For instance, the regulations define a political relationship as “a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof.” Rebecca Ballhaus of the Wall Street Journal reports that Whitaker chaired the 2014 Iowa state treasurer campaign of Sam Clovis, who went on to serve in the Trump campaign and administration and who, Ballhaus notes, is now a grand jury witness in the Mueller investigation. The Des Moines Register reported Whitaker’s chairmanship of Clovis’s campaign during the campaign itself. What’s more, in a text message to Ballhaus after Whitaker’s appointment, Clovis wrote that he was “proud of my friend,” referring to Whitaker, raising the question of whether there is a personal relationship as well.

There is an important process point here: Under the same Justice Department regulation mentioned above, Whitaker is obligated to seek guidance from career ethics attorneys regarding whether he should recuse. This is the process Jeff Sessions used in determining that the rules required that he recuse, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also sought guidance regarding his obligations, though Justice officials determined that his recusal was not required. If Whitaker either does not obtain an ethics opinion from career officials or if he departs from that guidance, that would be a serious red flag. Notably, the Washington Post reports that Trump “has told advisers that Whitaker is loyal and would not have recused himself from the investigation.” This raises a question about whether the president knows something about Whitaker’s intentions regarding recusal.

That was yesterday; today the Post reports (as we’ve seen) that Whitaker says no way will he recuse himself. So that will be a serious red flag.

Ok so what does that mean? It seems to me he’s already a serious red flag, but then what? Can anyone do anything about it?

Apparently not.

But if Whitaker does not recuse and actually supervises the investigation, he will be able to interfere with it if he chooses to do so.

Well he’s not going to recuse, so he will be able to interfere with it.

Image result for red flag

 

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 5 comments
Tags:


When you say some things that some people don’t like

Nov 8th, 2018 11:19 am | By

James Kirkup wrote about the Jenni Murray denunciation yesterday:

Here we go again. Perhaps there should be a template for journalists writing about transgender issues and the treatment of women with the “wrong” opinions. The template would look something like this:

A small group of noisy, angry people, many of them male, have demanded that [Insert woman’s name] not be allowed to speak/ appear/ have a job/ do anything because [woman] once said things the small group of people didn’t like or agree with.

Really, we could use it for so many cases and so many women: Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, Janice Turner, Posy Parker, Linda Bellos…

…me…

And a great many more, and the ranks keep growing all the time.

This comes about because last year, Murray said some things that some people didn’t like. You can read about them here but the gist was that someone who is born male and has lived as a man cannot truly become a woman by use of either surgery or makeup, because biology and socialisation are, well, real and cannot be magicked away by someone’s words or feelings.

For those remarks, Murray must, of course, be cast into the outer darkness forever; nothing should ever be heard from her again, on any subject. Never mind that the Oxford event in question is a broad one about “Powerful Women in History”. Never mind that it will see Murray be questioned about her positions and views, explaining and answering for them. The mere fact that she once said something some people didn’t like means that hosting her and allowing her to speak (about any topic) is a harmful and transphobic act, at least according to our excitable young friends at Oxford.

Literally once. It was that one Times piece. One piece, expressing one view that they consider Forbidden, and they need to do their best to get her thrown out of everything they can reach.

There’s nothing new or surprising about this, of course. It’s just part of the same old story that’s seen those women I mentioned above face attempts to make them shut up. It’s also grimly consistent with the anti-intellectual, anti-evidence approach taken by rather too many people at universities and which has been described eloquently by Prof Kathleen Stock and colleagues here.

Kirkup ended on a cheerful note, because the History Society didn’t comply, but he had to update it today after Murray canceled.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 21 comments


No intention

Nov 8th, 2018 10:35 am | By

Surprise surprise surprise, Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself. Well no shit; that’s why he got the job, so obviously he’s not going to do the thing he was promoted to not do. Normally the job should have gone to Rosenstein, and Whitaker wouldn’t have been in the line at all, but Don wants a loyal stooge and Whitaker is his boy.

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.

Also according to everything we know about Trump.

Ethics officials at the Justice Department are likely to review his past work to see if he has any financial or personal conflicts. In many instances, that office does not require a Justice Department official to recuse, but suggests a course of action. In the past, senior Justice Department officials tend to follow such advice, but they are rarely required to do so, according to officials familiar with the process.

Yeah that’s great – it’s so typical of the mush surrounding all this. “Oh there are norms and rules and blah blah blah but nobody can actually enforce them so it turns out when we get an actual criminal as president there’s nothing we can do.”  Ethics officials at the Justice Department are likely to review his past work to see if he has any financial or personal conflicts and then throw up their hands because he has them up to here but he’ll do Trump’s bidding.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. Officials there have said Whitaker will follow the regular procedure in handling any ethics issues that arise.

Then they rolled around on the floor laughing.

The two people close to Whitaker also said they strongly believe he would not approve any request from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to subpoena the president.

Translation: the fix is in.

We know.

Whitaker was virtually unknown to Sessions before becoming his chief of staff. A person familiar with the matter said he got on the White House’s radar via conservative circles in Iowa, his TV appearances and his connections with the Federalist Society and other conservative groups. When Sessions’s previous chief of staff, Jody Hunt, was departing, Sessions brought Whitaker in for an interview and came to like him, the person said. Another person said that remained true ever after Whitaker took his place.

Whitaker was a hard-charging top aide to Sessions, imposing on the Justice Department his personal philosophy of starting with the end in mind. His style rubbed many the wrong way, and at times Justice Department officials pushed back on his demands. Justice Department officials said his taking over for his boss was, at the very least, “awkward,” because chiefs of staff typically leave with the attorney general.

In other words he’s basically Steve Bannon with a law degree. Awesome.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 3 comments


Compliant women in history and society

Nov 8th, 2018 9:39 am | By

So, that Oxford SU LGBTQ statement complaining about Jenni Murray did its work: she has cancelled her appearance at the Oxford event. Well done, students: another woman silenced.

BBC Radio 4 host Dame Jenni Murray has pulled out of an Oxford University talk amid a backlash over comments she made about transgender people.

The Woman’s Hour presenter was invited to speak at an event called Powerful British Women in History and Society.

But the student union’s LGBTQ Campaign said she had made “transphobic comments” in a 2017 newspaper article.

The Oxford University History Society subsequently said she had cancelled her appearance “for personal reasons”.

Probably the personal reason of not wanting to deal with entitled little shits telling her to shut up.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog


Most upsetting

Nov 8th, 2018 8:51 am | By

So many replies come to mind…

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 7 comments


She behaves in a way not characteristic of White House aides

Nov 8th, 2018 8:27 am | By

Was Jim Acosta set up?

If you look at the video the whole thing seems very odd – she jumps up and charges at Acosta, which surely can’t be normal procedure at a press conference. It’s hard to say, because Trump holds so few of them, but it certainly comes across as weird. And why have a woman do that? Ahhh – to make the male reporter look as if he’s bullying the slender young female intern.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 8 comments


One little digit

Nov 8th, 2018 8:20 am | By

Dutch guy wants to be trans 49.

Emile Ratelband, 69, wants to shift his birthday from 11 March 1949 to 11 March 1969, comparing the change to identifying as being transgender.

“We live in a time when you can change your name and change your gender. Why can’t I decide my own age?” he said.

Is it satire or does he really mean it?

Mr Ratelband argues he feels discriminated against because of his age, and that it was affecting his employment chances and his success rate on the dating app, Tinder.

“When I’m 69, I am limited. If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work,” he said.

So why not make it 29?

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 4 comments


The heated exchange

Nov 7th, 2018 5:45 pm | By

The Post story seems so quaint and archaic now, written before the White House banned Jim Acosta.

President Trump lashed out at journalists during an afternoon press briefing, calling some of them “hostile,” instructing them to sit down and telling a CNN reporter, “You are a rude, terrible person.”

The heated exchange occurred Wednesday when CNN reporter Jim Acosta continued to question Trump after the president dismissed him during a news conference about the 2018 midterm elections. Acosta had brought up the Central American migrant caravan, asking the president why he characterized it as “an invasion.”

“I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN and if you did it well, your ratings would be much better,” Trump told Acosta.

Then when Acosta tried to question Trump about the Russia investigation, the president shouted: “That’s enough. That’s enough. That’s enough. That’s enough,” telling him to “put down the mic.”

Trump then told the reporter: “CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. … You’re a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible. And the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.”

He didn’t actually say horrible, he said, as he always does, harrible. It’s one of his (50 or 60) go-to words but he doesn’t know how to pronounce it.

Trump has repeatedly clashed with the media, especially CNN, lashing out at reporters and calling their stories “fake news.” As The Washington Post’s Elise Viebeck reported, Trump snapped at yet another reporter later in the press conference after she noted that the president had once called himself a “nationalist” and asked him whether his embrace of “nationalism” is supporting white nationalists.

“I don’t know why you’d say that — that’s such a racist question,” Trump told PBS Newshour’s White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, who is black.

“Why do I have my highest poll numbers ever with African Americans?” he said. “Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans? I mean, why do I have my highest poll numbers?”

“That’s such a racist question,” he added. “Honestly, I know you have it written down and you’re going to tell me. Let me tell you, that’s a racist question.”

Afterwards CNN spoke up.

Following the confrontations, CNN said in a statement on Twitter that Trump’s “ongoing attacks on the press have gone too far.”

“They are not only dangerous, they are disturbingly un-American,” according to the statement. “While President Trump has made it clear he does not respect a free press, he has a sworn obligation to protect it. A free press is vital to democracy, and we stand behind Jim Acosta and his fellow journalists everywhere.”

So what does Trump do? Shut down the reporter. Tell him not to put his hand in the fire, he’ll put his hand in the fire just to show you you can’t tell him what to do.

CNN president Jeff Zucker reportedly said in a memo to employees Wednesday that “this organization believes fiercely in the protections granted to us by the First Amendment, and we will defend them, and you, vigorously, every time.”

“I want you to know that we have your backs,” Zucker wrote, according to Hollywood Reporter.

Welp, it will be interesting to see what he says now.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 31 comments
Tags: ,


Now they’re shutting down the news media

Nov 7th, 2018 5:19 pm | By

Ugh. Now Trump’s people have banned Jim Acosta from the White House.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 4 comments
Tags: ,


A criminal subject president appointing his own prosecutor

Nov 7th, 2018 4:43 pm | By

Fred Wertheimer and Norm Eisen on Trump’s latest move:

After requesting and receiving Mr. Sessions’s resignation on Wednesday, President Trump wasted no time in naming Matthew Whitaker, Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff, as acting attorney general, and shifted the oversight role from Mr. Rosenstein back to the attorney general’s office and its new acting head.

As ethics experts, we believe Mr. Whitaker should recuse himself from the investigation. If we have ever seen an appearance of impropriety in our decades of experience, this is it: a criminal subject president appointing his own prosecutor — one who has evidently prejudged aspects of the investigation and mused about how it can be hampered.

No prosecutor — or indeed governmental official of any kind — should work on a matter under these circumstances. Mr. Whitaker must step aside. His conflicts are just as worrisome in their own way as Mr. Sessions’s conflict was, maybe more so.

Whether or not Mr. Whitaker steps aside, Mr. Trump’s audacity now demands additional safeguards. Congress must quickly put in place a plan to protect the Russia investigation before President Trump makes any further efforts to control the special counsel’s office.

It must, but will it?

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


This is extremely dangerous territory

Nov 7th, 2018 4:28 pm | By

My congressional representative has issued a statement on Trump’s move to obstruct the Mueller investigation:

SEATTLE, WA – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, member of the House Judiciary Committee, released the following statement regarding the firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions:

“This was no simple resignation: President Donald Trump fired Jeff Sessions the day after an election in which his party lost control of the House. This is extremely dangerous territory, placing our nation in the throes of a potential constitutional crisis. We must do everything we can to protect the Special Counsel’s investigation, and to ensure that this president does not obstruct justice.

“The president has made it clear for months now that he considered Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein impediments to ending the Special Counsel’s probe into interference in our elections, the Trump’s campaign’s role in that and any potential obstruction of justice from the president himself. President Trump also criticized Attorney General Sessions numerous times merely for doing the right thing and recusing himself from supervising Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. Installing a new Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, who has clearly and vocally been critical of the Special Counsel’s investigation and has called for limitations on Robert Mueller and his team, could—in and of itself—be another example of potential obstruction of justice by the president. Reports that Mr. Whitaker is seeking to take over the supervision of the Special Counsel’s investigation must be stopped immediately—we believe it is not only wildly inappropriate for Mr. Whitaker to supervise the Special Counsel, but actually illegal based on the existing regulations. The president may act as though he can simply hire and fire whomever he wants, but this is not the case if his actions are shown to subvert the rule of law and obstruct justice.

“The House Judiciary Committee Democrats have already begun issuing letters to key officials demanding that they preserve all relevant documents to ensure evidence remains safe from improper interference or destruction. There is bipartisan support for these protections. Now is the time for Congress to pass the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act and protect the Special Counsel’s investigation from any attempt to interfere and obstruct.”

It’s a bit of an emergency, really.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 1 Comment »
Tags:


Is the coup approaching?

Nov 7th, 2018 4:06 pm | By

Also scary.

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1060312689262632960

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1060315495105216512

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1060317946847862784

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 3 comments
Tags:


Teetering

Nov 7th, 2018 3:48 pm | By

CNBC reports:

President Donald Trump’s new acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, will oversee special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

“The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice,” a spokeswoman for the department said Wednesday when asked if Whitaker would oversee Mueller’s investigation.

Which is kind of…how shall I say…shady, because Whitaker hasn’t been confirmed by the Senate.

Whitaker argued in an August 2017 op-ed for CNN that Mueller’s investigation is “dangerously close to crossing” the so-called red line not to look into the Trump family’s finances.

“It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump’s finances or his family’s finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else,” Whitaker wrote in the piece.

“That goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special counsel.”

Less than a month earlier, Whitaker had defended Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., for accepting a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 with Russian officials who had promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign.

“You would always take that meeting,” Whitaker said on CNN.

He sounds…how shall I say…shady.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called on Whitaker to recuse himself, citing “his record of threats to undermine & weaken the Russia investigation.”

But if he’s shady he’s not going to recuse himself, is he, and he sounds shady.

The BBC has more:

CBS News is reporting that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is no longer leading the Mueller inquiry, and that Matthew Whitaker will now assume control.

The president cannot directly fire the special counsel, whose investigation Mr Trump has repeatedly decried as a witch hunt. But Mr Sessions’ replacement will have the power to fire Mr Mueller or end the inquiry.

Mr Rosenstein was summoned to the White House on Wednesday for what was described as a previously scheduled meeting.

This is not looking good.

Democrats were outraged by the attorney general’s removal, with the Democratic National Committee noting that the appointee has not been confirmed for the role by the US Senate as required.

The party’s Senate leader Chuck Schumer tweeted: “Clearly, the President has something to hide.”

“Given his previous comments advocating defunding and imposing limitations on the Mueller investigation, Mr Whitaker should recuse himself from its oversight for the duration of his time as acting attorney general.”

…

House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said: “It is impossible to read Attorney General Sessions’ firing as anything other than another blatant attempt by President Trump to undermine & end Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.”

Not looking good at all.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 1 Comment »
Tags:


Thanks and so long

Nov 7th, 2018 12:16 pm | By

Bam, Sessions is out.

Can the coup be far behind?

Scary times.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 7 comments
Tags:


Guest post: In the middle of red America

Nov 7th, 2018 11:49 am | By

Originally a comment by iknklast on Don’t worry, be happy.

In my state, the voters voted for Medicaid expansion – yay! But…these same voters voted to retain all of the Republican incumbents who loathe Medicaid expansion with a visceral hatred that springs partially out of their hatred of taxes and partially out of their hatred for the poor. So will we actually gain the expansion voted for? Not if our governor (who just got reelected in spite of the fact that he is vile) has anything to say about it.

Don’t try to tell me Republican voters are voting how they are because they want a better life and believe the Democrats won’t bring that to them because the Democrats are only interested in “identity politics”. Don’t even try to tell me that. I know better. I live in the middle of red America, and I hear what my neighbors say. And it isn’t “I need a job”. They believe no one listens to them because there are other people that are demanding equal rights with them, and that sometimes (not often, but sometimes) get listened to and have gained a great deal from the days when said people (i.e. women and all non-white people) were unable to vote, work for pay, or even leave the grounds without permission. They are angry not that their kids can’t pray in school, since they can and all the parents actually know that, but that other people’s kids can’t be forced to pray, and pray to the “right” god. They are angry because the Democrats put up a black candidate for president, and got him elected, and then put up a woman for president who seemed to think she was entitled to run. They are angry because they are not recognized as the warrior kings they are, and are instead considered the equal of those they consider lesser, rather than being masters of those they consider lesser.

So they vote not for jobs, not for enfranchisement, not for anything that pundits claim they vote for, but instead they vote for hate.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 1 Comment »


That’s a racist question

Nov 7th, 2018 11:25 am | By

Another highlight from the Trump Meltdown press conference.

Bad hair day.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 3 comments


Yew shud be aschamed

Nov 7th, 2018 10:39 am | By

Aren’t we cranky today.

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1060223898501824513

There’s nothing quite like the irony of watching Donald Trump shaking his finger at Jim Acosta while saying “You are a rude, terrible person” while Acosta is in fact being perfectly polite.

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog | 7 comments
Tags: